I think threemae was joking.
-FrL-
oh.
She. Her. Female. Proud owner of two X chromosomes. 
“Letting”? What’s so unbelievable about a client who is active and educated about her situation? How is having a helpless, clueless client a better thing than one who thoroughly understands her situation, her case, and the laws involved? I mean, apart from making it easier to bill?
Gosh. Good luck with your case!
I have this buddy, he is a mechanic. He has a sign on the wall of his shop that says:
Fix your car…$60 per hr
You Watch While I Fix it…$70 per hr
You help Me Fix It…$200 per hr
The OP has said she doesn’t care for opinions regarding whether she should act as her own attorney; she’s instead looking for nuts and bolts. (And as an irrelevant aside, OneCentStamp, not everyone who has two X chromosomes is female. )
First, I am not your lawyer, you are not my client. What follows is not legal advice; you should not rely on it. Frankly, if I were you, I’d stop reading here. Read on at your peril.
The nuts and bolts of lawyering in California (I presume state court) aren’t something one can learn overnight, but there are helpful references. If you’ve been actively involved in your case, making procedural judgments, writing motions, and all that jazz, you likely are already familiar with much of what follows.
Materials you will need:
The Rutter Guide. You’ve probably been using Civil Procedure Before Trial. Look for the blue one, Civil Trials and Evidence (I think that’s the name – I know it’s blue). That’s the nuts and bolts of California trial work. That should give you a start – things to think about during opening statement; some strategy regarding motions in limine; some evidentiary help; etc.
Evidence: beyond the Code itself, which can be a bit dense, consider reviewing a couple of the treatises. Imwinkelreid is considered authoritative. I also like the NITA books, but I don’t know if libraries carry them. NITA doesn’t have a California book (just federal law) but some of the principles are the same. Their little book of objections is good to have at counsel table.
Witkin. If you researched the law, you probably already know about Witkin, particularly the Summary of California Law. For trial, on Evidence and on Procedure are helpful for specific points. Witkin can be authoritative when cited to a judge (we generally don’t cite Rutter to the judge unless in a bind).
Jefferson’s Benchbook. The judges all have this, and rely on it. Not as authoritative as Witkin, but more authoritative than Rutter.
Local Rules. Most counties have them and usually list them on their websites. They’re a good thing to review, because they impose some requirements beyond what’s required in the Code or the Rules of Court. Note that Rutter will generally cite to the Code section or Rule of Court that’s applicable, but may not cite to a local rule. There are a lot of counties, each with different requirements, so Rutter will sometimes give examples but you shouldn’t consider the list exhaustive.
Things to consider:
Local local rules were abolished in California 5 or 10 years ago, but judges still have their “practices” – ways that they prefer things to be done. Observing some trials can tell you how your judge prefers objections (none? speaking? sidebar?), whether original depositions need to be lodged, and some other management issues, but can’t tell you how he/she prefers motions be submitted, etc. If you can’t get that information from other attorneys, try to buddy up to the clerk.
When are your motions in limine due? Strategically, consider whether any motions ought to be filed at all, or whether you want to start educating the judge/setting up a later JNOV/directed verdict/nonsuit. If you’re right about the lack of merit of the plaintiff’s case, a nonsuit may be warranted. Make sure you know what has to be in plaintiff’s opening statement to avoid nonsuit; if he doesn’t get it in, nonsuit him right then and there.
Think through all your evidentiary issues – what documents do you need? How will you get them in? Do you have any authenticity or foundation problems?
Draft your cross exam outlines. Keep them tight; think through every impeachment cite to make sure there’s no wiggle room. If you need documents to impeach plaintiff’s witness, how will you use them? When do you refresh recollection versus impeach?
If you observe trial, watch how lawyers use the elmo. If you’re going to be your own lawyer, ask the clerk during a break if you can look at the elmo. Practice putting documents on it so you don’t look like a putz the first time you actually do it.
I’m sure I’ll think of more later, but that’s just off the top of my head right now. One last thing – don’t traverse the well. It’s gauche. Good luck!
27 posts in before I get what I asked for, complete with freedom from opinion about my decision!
Bless you, Sir!
(I haven’t made up my mind yet, and even if I keep my attorney, I like having a thorough understanding of what’s going on. Cool.)
She. Her. Female. Proud owner of two X chromosomes. (Subject to Campion’s own comments re multiplicity of X chromosomes, upthread.)
This might be what you’re looking for: Represent Yourself in Court: How to Prepare & Try a Winning Case, by Nolo Press.
But, I can’t resist saying, you almost certainly would be better off with a lawyer.
Actually, I will very frequently ask my clients to give me a detailed narrative write-up of what happened, and if the client knows, his or her understanding of the substantive law (including relevant citations). Where the client is a decent writer and the narrative addresses the relevant points, I will use it to the greatest extent possible in drafting factual sections of the pleadings and affidavits. I’ll be sure to make sure the demands for relief, jurisdictional allegations, wherefore clauses and the like comply with the applicable rules, but I find that using the client’s voice when I can adds to the papers.
When I do commercial litigation, it is often the case that the client knows the area of business law he or she deals with every day a lot better than I do. My job is to arrange the legal claim so that we are most likely to receive relief in the arcane world of litigation. If it is an area of substantive law I don’t know well, I sure as heck am going to ask the client what he or she understands the law to be and what statutes or major cases he or she thinks apply. I will confirm this with my own research, but knowing exactly where to start it can save a lot of time flailing around in fruitless initial research.
Stoid, one thing that may be the source of some of your unease with your lawyer is that a general litigator will often initially not have a particularly good understanding of the particular area of substantive law that applies to your claim, but know the procedure of presenting a claim in court very well. And a general litigator will rarely have an immediate understanding of the factual nuances of your claim, unless it falls into a very common pattern (and even the apparently common cases have their quirks). If you already have a very good understanding of your claim, and your presentation of it falls into a form effective for initial presentation in court, the lawyer will do rather little apparent “work” in shaping the claim. However, what is perhaps the most important thing is that he or she looked at what you did and concluded that it would work with minor tinkering. He or she kept you from submitting crap.
Putting together papers is a somewhat straightforward process, but trial isn’t. One thing that I immediately see is that you are basing a lot of your comfort with your case on the fact that the other side contradicted himself in the deposition. At trial, you will have to know how to use deposition testimony to cross-examine him effectively, and otherwise attack his credibility. This is a trial skill that good lawyers have, and if the case turns on his story, doing this is critical. You may think that his case will collapse on its own at trial, and it just might, but giving it a good swift kick in the right place will surely help it collapse, and an experienced lawyer will know exactly how and where to kick for maximum effect.
Good luck whatever you choose.
I know you don’t want to hear it, but even a lawyer should not represent him or herself in a civil trial for the simple fact that someone arguing on behalf of another is more believable than someone arguing their own case. I’m not sure why, but that’s the case. (plus all the other reasons above).
As to nuts and bolts that I didn’t see mentioned (and may or may not apply in your case but you can ponder them)…you need to prepare jury instructions with cases cited and be ready to argue those…learn how to properly confront a witness with a prior deposition (ETA - I see this has been alluded to), do a verdict form, proposed judgment, pre-trial orders, and be ready to argue against plaintiff’s versions of all of these. And make sure you know how many copies of each of these you must provide, to whom, and when.
And read about those rules of evidence. You don’t want to accidentally testify to something that kills your case.
Good luck, however you decide to go with this.
I ain’t your lawyer etc…
Thus I specified female as well as the owner of two X chromosomes. Dr Klinefelter? Paging Dr. Klinefelter… 
When I was working at my previous job, we had to sue an American manufacturer for breach of contract. It was an interesting situation, where we continued to act as a distributor for the manufacturer, while litigating. I did a fair amount of preparation and writing of the facts, as well as laid out the strategy for the direction to take, and many of the questions for deposition. I was able to do this because I knew a lot more about the facts, what the other side would likely say and what may trap them. I wanted to settle, but at 60 to 65%, with a guaranty of continued distribution for three years, and in turn offered to take the settlement as a fixed percentage off of their sales price. What I didn’t attempt to do was actually write the claim or depose the other side myself.
We settled at 55%, which was less than what I wanted, but go the rest.